Spinoza’s Philosophy & Nihilism God, Truth, and Freedom in an Uncaring Universe M.G. (Gaby) de Jong MA Thesis Philosophy – University Utrecht Student Number: 3697975 Program: Academic Master Philosophy Thesis Advisor: dr. Albert Gootjes Second Reader dr. Johan de Jong Date of Submission: 24/05/2017 Total Word Count: 21034 (main text: 18333) Contact: [email protected] 1 “Spinoza has been claimed as the ancestor, founder, or originator of many things, both good and evil, among them the ruin of all religions, biblical criticism, liberalism, Jewish secularism, Zionism, the enlightenment, secularization, neurobiology, evolutionary theory, toleration, libertarianism, and modernity as such. Taken together these claims are too good to be true, and yet one can usually see why people have interpreted Spinoza’s heritage along these lines.” Piet Steenbakkers, Spinoza Research: To Be Continued (2016). Pg. 19. While writing my thesis I could not help but recall these words spoken by professor Steenbakkers in his farewell address, almost anticipating a project such as my own. The first Spinoza lecture I received was in 2009 (or 2010) and given by professor Steenbakkers when I was yet to become a student of philosophy. It seems only fitting that his words are at the beginning of the end of my philosophical path that as a circle begins and ends with Spinoza. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................. 4 I. Interpreting Scripture and Defending Freedom ..................................... 5 II. God and/or Nature ......................................................................................... 7 III. Nietzsche and Nihilism ............................................................................... 9 IV. Nihilism as Method .................................................................................... 12 Chapter 1: Pan(a)theism ......................................................................... 16 1.1. Seventeenth Century Atheism ................................................................ 17 1.2. The Charge of Atheism ............................................................................. 20 1.3. Spinoza’s Response ................................................................................... 24 1.4. Atheists & Religion in the Political State ............................................ 27 1.5. Spinozistic Spirituality & the Afterlife ................................................ 30 1.6. Keeping Score: Spinoza’s Atheistic Nihilism ...................................... 32 1.7. Conclusion Chapter 1 ............................................................................... 34 Chapter 2: Knowing God, Knowing Nature ........................................ 35 2.1. Truth in the History of Philosophy ....................................................... 36 2.2. Eighteenth Century Acosmism ............................................................... 40 2.3. Spinoza’s Epistemology ............................................................................ 45 2.4. Acosmistic Illusions Shattered ............................................................... 48 2.5. Conclusion Chapter 2 ............................................................................... 50 Chapter 3: Freedom in Necessity .......................................................... 51 3.1. Libertarian Freedom ................................................................................ 52 3.2. Spinoza’s Necessitarianism ..................................................................... 53 3.3. Spinozistic Freedom ................................................................................. 56 3.4. The Model of Human Excellence ............................................................ 59 3.5. What Human Freedom Is and Isn’t ........................................................ 61 3.6. Conclusion Chapter 3 ............................................................................... 65 Final Conclusion ....................................................................................... 67 Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... 70 Summary ..................................................................................................... 71 Bibliography .............................................................................................. 73 3 Introduction Nihilist: We believe in nothing Lebowski. Nothing. The Big Lebowski (1998). When Spinoza’s Tractactus Theologico-Politicus (henceforth: TTP) was first anonymously published in 1670 it was met with strong opposition by the religious intelligentsia of the United Republic, with one of its most disturbed critics denouncing it as being a “book forged in hell”1. These are harsh words, but Spinoza was not unaccustomed to these kinds of treatment; he was already an exile amongst exiles by having been “banned, cut off, cursed and anathematized” from the Portuguese-Jewish community in Amsterdam fourteen years before2. The perceived crime that finalized his banishment was his refusal to distance himself from his philosophy, though still in its infancy, which was regarded by the elders of his faith to be heretical and evil. From these facts it is clear that in his life Spinoza unleashed a deeply disturbing philosophy that shook the Republic and Jewish community at their very core. But were these condemnations of malicious intentions, attributed to his work and character, warranted? The main topic of this thesis is to investigate these claims and establish whether Spinoza’s philosophy contains nihilistic tendencies and sentiments, meant to alienate man from metaphysical perfection3, and 1 Nadler (2011), Preface. All biographical details of Spinoza’s life are taken from Steven Nadler’s Spinoza, a Life (1999) unless stated otherwise. For the immediate reception of the TTP, see Gootjes (2017). References to Spinoza’s works are keyed to the standard critical edition in Gebhardt (1925); all translations have been taken from Curley (1985) and Curley (2016). 2 The exact cause of Spinoza’s banishment remains the topic of a lively scholarly debate; an overview can be found in Nadler (1999), chapter 6. 3 Marmysz (2003), p. 91. Marmysz formulates nihilism as a frustration stemming from human alienation from all metaphysical perfection, such as Truth, Goodness, and Justice. This is not the exact notion of ‘nihilism’, 4 creating a situation in which everything is permitted, as his critics feared it would. In order to answer this question we will first need to understand some broad elements of Spinoza’s philosophy that made him a persona non grata to begin with. Secondly, there has to be an established meaning for the term ‘nihilism’ and what it fundamentally stands for4. By solidifying the working elements of these two matters we have the necessary tools and methods to answer this main question of this thesis conclusively. Now that it has been made clear that Spinoza was a controversial thinker, it is now time to show why. I. Interpreting Scripture and Defending Freedom The Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century was still a deeply divided nation, struggling with its identity as a newly founded state while also trying to govern over a multitude of people with a wide range of religious affiliations. This included large groups of people that fled their homelands for fear of religious persecutions, such as Spinoza’s own parents, to the relatively safe borders of the liberal Republic. However, the reigning religion of the native Dutch remained Calvinism, a form of Protestantism that emphasized modesty through frugality and contained bitter doctrines such as predestination and original sin. After fighting for their religious freedom from the Catholic Hapsburgs Empire, many Dutch Calvinists once again tried to make religion law within the United Republic, trying to use their religious influences to have a say in political affairs and to silence dissenting voices that they deemed to be dealing in improper and unchristian ideas. It was difficult to keep religious affairs outside the in relation to Spinoza’s philosophy, that will be investigated within this thesis. 4 Another project that interprets Spinoza as a nihilist philosopher is Skulsky (2009). However, the meaning of ‘nihilism’ adhered to within that work is underdeveloped since the term is simply taken to be synonymous with ‘naturalism’. The notion of ‘nihilism’ within this project is informed by Nietzsche and emphasizes a reactionary, psychological, component not present in that of Skulsky. 5 political sphere, but also vice versa the magistrate outside religious affairs5. It is within this political and religious context that the TTP was released6. The stated aim of the TTP is the following: to show that “the republic can grant freedom of philosophizing without harming its peace or piety, and cannot deny it without destroying its peace and piety”7. While this may be a laudable goal, Spinoza made no friends with his proposed method in convincing the Christian authorities and political powers of this ideal. He starts out building his case by countering superstitions about matters of faith, devoting large parts of the TTP to biblical criticism and a literal hermeneutics that aim to reevaluate the status of Scripture, its interpretation, and kind of knowledge it provides. It was exactly these first two steps that truly offended religious sentiments, since Spinoza